Jamerson v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that courts “presume that juries follow instructions” (citing , 968 F.2d 1076, 1086 (11th Cir. 1992))
• stating that we review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo
• noting that “[a] jury instruction that was allegedly incorrect under state law is not a basis for habeas relief, because federal habeas review is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”
• “Our inquiry also is not whether the challenged instructions were undesirable, erroneous, or even universally condemned.” (cleaned up)
• “[W]e presume that juries follow instructions . . . .”
• “Federal habeas relief is unavailable ‘for errors of state law.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).